For almost four centuries, human activities have profoundly affected the Hudson River, its estuary, and its watershed. Our brief review of the history of human activities and their relationship to the Hudson system, its science, and its management leads us to the following major conclusions:
• The Hudson River cannot simply be viewed as a river isolated from the rest of the environment.
Indeed, the crucial role of the watershed that feeds fresh water to the river and the Atlantic Ocean that provides saltwater to the estuary and powers its tides are important considerations in the Hudson system's ecological functioning and health.
• Economic issues have been at the root of most environmental management decisions. Indeed, it was not until a landmark decision in 1965 regarding power generation on the river that issues related to natural resources and aesthetics had any legal standing in environmental litigation.
• While the overall management structure for the river and estuary has dramatically changed over the last 100 years, successes in conquering regional problems have shared the same characteristics: the development of sound technical information to understand the problem and its potential solution; the formation of appropriate partnerships that include all appropriate decision makers; pressure from stakeholders and concerned individuals outside the management agencies for specific outcomes; the acquisition of funds appropriate to the task; and an institutional structure to implement the solution.
• Science per se rarely motivates managerial actions. However, science that is appropriately available to managers when needed is often essential to making the most effective managerial decisions. Science and environmental management may at times seem incompatible, but without proper incorporation of scientific information into decision making, serious errors will result.
• For solving complex environmental problems, it is not enough to collect environmental data by means of monitoring or other survey programs alone. Process-oriented information must also be obtained from research and modeling, either mathematical or conceptual. For there to be real hope for such scientific results to be useful to managers, synthetic and interpretive value must be added.
• Land use is a key issue affecting all parts of the Hudson ecosystem's components. Regulating land use is an aspect of environmental management that is challenging to implement due to a patchwork of regulations in different jurisdictions, the strong tradition of home rule in New
York State and U.S. Constitutional protections of the rights of individual land owners.
• The role of the Federal government has gradually increased particularly in the latter part of the last century due to recognition of the interconnect-edness of different factors affecting the environment. This has had beneficial results regarding environmental management, but has also complicated the role of government in this activity.
• Although prior to the 1960s primary responsibilities for management of the Hudson, its estuary, and its watershed fell to just a few agencies, there is now a complex maze of government agencies at the Federal, state, and local levels whose jurisdictions and purview often overlap. To effect successful environmental management of the Hudson system, substantial interagency interaction and coordination is necessary. Mechanisms that foster interagency and cooperation are important. Of greatest importance is collaboration on issues where gaps in authority and responsibility are preventing regional solutions from being developed and implemented.
• New management structures (that is, de facto management responsibilities) have emerged to deal with problems that cross political and institutional boundaries, and for which no single entity has full responsibility to resolve. Programs like CARP and habitat restoration efforts demonstrate that external pressures on existing management agencies can generate new collabora-tionsandnewfundingstrategies,andbridgegaps in existing authorities.
• Both HEP and HREMP provide excellent fora to set goals for the future of the river and estuary, and provide a starting place and "umbrella" for new management structures to develop and take on the tasks necessary to achieve the goals.
• There is a "disconnect" between the institutions that fund research and the management agencies that use the information that the funded research generates. With growing demands for watershed planning, habitat restoration, contaminant reduction, andbiodiversityprotec-tion, agencies will require better understandings of ecosystem processes in order to formulate credible and predictive management strategies. Consequently more research, modeling, and synthesis will be required than ever before. If the present model of sponsoring research continues, new sources of funding will be required and stronger ties betweenmanagement agencies and research organizations will have to be forged.
• The Hudson River Foundation has been an important source of funding for scientific research. Much of this research has had bearing, directly and indirectly, on issues related to the management of the Hudson's resources, and accordingly has been sought and used by management agencies. Nonetheless, one of the great challenges of managers of research is to find ways to "translate" the results of research to practical application and to keep managers and policymakers informed of the latest scientific information that bears on their responsibilities.
Adler, R. W. 1995. Addressing Barriers to Watershed Protection. Environmental Law 25:973-1106.
Barnthouse, L. W, Klauda, R. J., and Vaughn, D. S. 1988. What We Didn't Learn about the Hudson River, Why, and What it Means for Environmental Assessment. American Fisheries Society Monograph 4:329-35.
Boyle, R. H. 1979. The Hudson River: A Natural and Unnatural History. New York: Norton.
Bourdain, A. 2001. Typhoid Mary: An Urban Historical. New York: Bloomsbury, USA.
Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring.Greenwich, CT: Fawcett.
Dunwell, F. F. 1991. The Hudson Highlands. New York: Columbia University Press.
Foster, D. R., Motzkin, G., and Slater, B. 1998. Land-use history as long-term broad-scale disturbance: regional forest dynamics in central New England. Ecosystems 1:96-119.
Habitat Work Group. 2001. New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program Habitat Workgroup 2001 Status Report: A Regional Model for Estuary and Multiple Watershed Management. New York, NY.
Hetling, L. J., Stoddard, A., Brosnan, T. M., Hammerman, D. A., and Norris, T. M. 2003. Effects of Water Quality Management Efforts on Wastewater Loadings over the Past Century, Water Environment Federation, 75:30-8.
Howe, E. T. 2002. The Hudson-Mohawk Region Industrializes: 1609-1860. Hudson River Valley Review 19:40-57.
Interstate Sanitation Commission. 1937. Annual Report of Interstate Sanitation Commission for the Year 1937. Trenton, NJ.
Johnson, M. D. 2000. A Sociocultural Perspective on the Development of U.S. Natural Resource Partnerships in the 20th Century. March 13-16 2000; Tucson, AZ. Proceedings RMRS-P-13. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, pp. 205-12.
Klawonn,M. J. 1977. Cradle of the Corps: AHistory ofthe New York District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -1775-1975. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District publication.
Kleppel, Gary S. 2002. Urbanization and Environmental Quality: Implications of Alternative Development Scenarios. Albany Law Environmental Outlook 8:38-64.
Limburg, K. E., Levin, S. A., and Harwell, C. C. 1986. Ecology and Estuarine Impact Assessment: Lessons Learned from the Hudson River (U.S.A.) and Other Estuarine Experiences. Journal of Environmental Management 22:255-80.
Limburg, K. E., Moran, M. A., and McDowell, W.H. 1986. Hudson River Ecosystem. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Lindblom, C. E. 1995. The Science of Muddling Through. Public Policy: The Essential Readings. S. Theodoulou and M. Cahn (eds.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 113-27.
Marsh, G. P 1864. Man and Nature; or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action. New York: C. Scribner.
McMartin, B. 1992. Hides, Hemlocks, and Adirondack History: How the Tanning Industry Influenced the Region's Growth.Utica, NY: North Country Books.
Metropolitan Sewerage Commission. 1910. Report of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, New York, NY.
Mountjoy, J. J. 2003. Interstate Compacts: An Alternative for Solving Common Problems Among States. The 2003 Edition of the Report on Trends in the State Courts. The National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, VA.
New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. 1996. Final Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, New York, NY.
New York District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1985. Record of Decision with attached Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation for Westway. New York, NY.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1979. Hudson River Basin: Water and Related Land Resources. Level B Study Report and Environmental Impact Statement. Albany, NY.
New York Times, The. 1890. "A Poor Sewage System," July28, 1890. p. 8.
1910. "Cleansing the Harbor," March 8,1910, p. 8.
1923. "Sewage Disposal Deferred by Mayor," April 9, 1923, p. 18.
1931. "City Will Act Today on Sewage Disposal." May 8, 1931, p. 27.
Nolon, J. 1999. Grassroots regionalism through intermunicipal land use compacts. St. John's Law Review 73:1011-39.
O'Connor, D. J. 1990. A Historical Perspective: Engineering and Scientific. Cleaning Up Our Coastal Waters: An Unfinished Agenda. Proceedings of a conference co-sponsored by Manhattan College and the Management Conferences for the Long Island Sound Study, the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program and the New York Bight Restoration Plan. March 12-14,1990. pp. 49-67.
Richardson, R. W., and Tauber, G. (eds). 1979.TheHud-son River Basin: Environmental Problems and Institutional Response, Volume 1. Academic Press, NewYork, NY. 354 p.
Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission. 1965. 453 F. 2d 463 (2d Cir 1971).
Schubel, J. R. 1992. A Research Program for the Hudson River Estuary: Report on the Development ofan Es-tuarine Science-Management Paradigm. Hudson River Estuary Management Program, September 1992. NewYork State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. 72 pp.
Smith, T. F. 2002. Institutional Analysis for Estuary Management. Proceedings of Coast to Coast 2002: Australia's National Coastal Conference, Queensland Environmental Protection Agency and Coastal Council of New South Wales.
Squires, D. F. 1992. QuantifyingAnthropogenic Shoreline Modification of the Hudson River and Estuary form European Contact to Modern Time. Coastal Management 20:343-54.
Stanne, S. P., Panetta, R. G., Forist, B. E., and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. 1996. The Hudson: An Illustrated Guide to the Living River. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Steinberg, N., Suszkowski, D. J., Clark, L., and Way, J. 2004. Health of the Harbor: The First Comprehensive Look at the State of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary. NewYork: Hudson River Foundation.
Sundeen, M., and Runyon, L. C. 1998. Interstate Compacts and Administrative Agreements: State Legislative Report. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures, March 1998, Vol. 23, No. 8.
Suszkowski, D. J., and Schubel, J. R. 1994. Hope for the Hudson: New Opportunities for Managing an Estuary. Changes in Fluxes in Estuaries, ECSA22/ERF Symposium. Olssen & Olsen, Fredensborg, Denmark, pp. 395-400.
Terrie, P. 1994. Forever Wild: A Cultural History of Wilderness in the Adirondacks. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972. The Challenge of the Environment: A Primer on EPA's Statutory Authority. EPA publication, Washington, D.C. (Available online at http://www.epa. gov/history/topics/fwpca/05.htm.)
Waldman, J. 1999. Heartbeats in the Muck: The History, Sea Life, and Environment of New York Harbor. Guilford, CT: The Lyons Press.
Waldman, J., Hart, J. T., and Wirgin, I. I. 1996. Stock composition of the NewYork Bight Atlantic Sturgeon fishery based on analysis of mitochon-drial DNA. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 125:364-71.
Was this article helpful?